Sutton won't get $4 million. The cap going up the way it will is going to bump salaries up a little more than expected since teams will have more money to spend, but precedents have already been set. Chris Phillips, for example, just signed a four year deal at $3.75 million per. Phillips is a better player than Sutton and also has a lot more experience despite being younger. With the market set that way, I doubt anyone will double Sutton's salary. There's a decent amount of defensemen available so a middle tier guy like Sutton isn't going to find himself in a terribly high demand situation. If a team wants to overpay him, I think at most he gets $3 million per.

I don't believe the Recchi/Roberts package deal. I know it's been discussed but I really can't see Recchi leaving Pittsburgh at this point in his career unless the Pens stop negotiations. He's not going to leave his family, which includes young children, for a year over a few hundred thousand dollars. Maybe he and his agent aren't entirely happy with what's been offered and are holding out for as much as they can get but I can't imagine them not agreeing eventually whether or not Roberts is back. Recchi returning probably does affect Roberts a bit since having Recchi on board makes it a more attractive situation on and off the ice for Roberts. It's looking more and more likely that the Pens will have to negotiate with Roberts on the open market with Ottawa, Toronto, and Buffalo calling and that's not good news for us. Roberts would have made a big difference for both Ottawa and Buffalo in the playoffs so you have to think both teams will go after him strongly, especially since the large cap increase gives them more money to spend.

package deal is just another evidence of total stupidity. How do you think roberts would honestly feel about that? what other team could possibly possibly consider adding both. Frankly I think the Pens are fools for taking recchi back outside a significant cut and clear understanding of a significantly reduced roll.

No, but it's been said by more than one respected member of the hockey media that Brooks is a known rumor-monger. I've heard it more than once that some players and media guys will deliberately misinform Brooks (they'll tell him "off the record" type stuff) or feed him rumors everyone knows isn't true, and then take bets on what ends up in his columns.

That's not exactly news, and it's one of the hazards of the pundit business. Check Peter Gammons' accuracy record sometime on baseball.

If you find someone who's had a better handle on what's happening with the NHLPA than Brooks, please direct me to his articles. It's a pretty significant developing story that has possible future implications (especially for a smaller market team that has a lot of young talent like the Pens) but there isn't a word about it in the local papers.

Brooks misses sometimes, as does everyone who takes chances, but it's a mistake to dismiss him out of hand or to suggest that he "makes things up."

Marshall Dylan wrote:That's not exactly news, and it's one of the hazards of the pundit business. Check Peter Gammons' accuracy record sometime on baseball.

If you find someone who's had a better handle on what's happening with the NHLPA than Brooks, please direct me to his articles. It's a pretty significant developing story that has possible future implications (especially for a smaller market team that has a lot of young talent like the Pens) but there isn't a word about it in the local papers.

Brooks misses sometimes, as does everyone who takes chances, but it's a mistake to dismiss him out of hand or to suggest that he "makes things up."

Brooks was a batboy for Goodenow. He knew nothing from the league side and he was clueless to the player revolt to Goodenow. He was nothing more than a propaganda machine for the NHLPA and he purposely made up stuff to try and sway the fans to the players side. All because he didnt not want a cap himself.

So was it Brooks' idea to fire Saskin and accuse him of reading e-mails sent by players? Has Brooks directed the new leadership to consult with Don Fehr, which is now happening?

Please cite examples of how Brooks "purposely made up stuff" to try and sway fans.

Marshall Dylan wrote:That's not exactly news, and it's one of the hazards of the pundit business. Check Peter Gammons' accuracy record sometime on baseball.

If you find someone who's had a better handle on what's happening with the NHLPA than Brooks, please direct me to his articles. It's a pretty significant developing story that has possible future implications (especially for a smaller market team that has a lot of young talent like the Pens) but there isn't a word about it in the local papers.

Brooks misses sometimes, as does everyone who takes chances, but it's a mistake to dismiss him out of hand or to suggest that he "makes things up."

Gammons' stuff has some modicum of truth to it, though. The deals or signings may never come to fruition, but they are at least being discussed.

Gammons is extremely well connected, and many GMs actually use him as a source of information to figure out what others are doing or want to do. He is as crucial to the MLB trade deadline as any of the general managers in baseball.

fletch wrote:fehr was the worst thing to ever happen to professional baseball. hes destroyed that sport. Its why it sucks and nobody watches it anymore.

Wait, you're knocking baseball for their television audience?

I'd kill to have that many people watching hockey. ESPNs Sunday Night Baseball still does very well. The World Series is still a top draw. Is it as much of a draw lately as it was years back? No, but it's still one of the better ones outside of the Super Bowl.

fletch wrote:No I am not talking about the TV audience. Im am talking about Baseballs fan base in general. Its an old decaying fan base. People 40 and under generally do not follow it like their fathers. Kids 20 and under do not even play it anymore or even show much interest. The sport is becoming irrelevant. Free agency and rich club geared entry draft and foreign player rights has done the bulk of damage imo.

You can look at polls all you want, but those are the real stats. People are still buying tickets and the game is still doing incredibly well. Season ticket-holders are the fan base, no matter what their ages are.

fletch wrote:Baseball is nowwhere near as popular as it was for 80 years. This is beyond dispute. Baseball in the 70s and 80s had twice the fans it does today. You cannot with any bit of seriousness tell me that a quickly aging fan base is not a serious problem for baseball.

Of course it is not as popular. Football and basketball gave grown tremendously. NASCAR has grown tremendously.

Baseball is still very healthy, especially financially. It's more popular with older folks, yes, but the youth foundation is still very strong.

You claim that there were more fans in the 70s and 80s. I ask you to quantify that. Stadiums are actually larger now and attendance is growing to fit those stadiums.

If baseball was truly in trouble, you'd have larger stadiums with a lesser percentage of those stadiums being filled. As a whole, baseball attendance is actually increasing and the percentage of stadiums filled is quite high.

No, it is not the national pasttime anymore. It's apparent that football has taken that place. But baseball is still vibrantly healthy.

Also, as a rebuttal to your continued claims that young people don't go to games...they may not be season ticket holders or watch on television as much as the older generation, but there is still a very strong population of 18-35 year olds going to games, especially on Friday and Saturday nights.

Even at PNC Park, there's a ton of younger people in the crowd on any given night.

You claim that there were more fans in the 70s and 80s. I ask you to quantify that. Stadiums are actually larger now and attendance is growing to fit those stadiums.

This is the only part I disagree with. Baseball stadiums now are much smaller than they were in the 70's and 80's. Look at PNC Park compared to Three Rivers Stadium. PNC holds around 38,000, Three Rivers for baseball was around 55,000-60,000. With all of the cookie cutter stadiums built in the 1970's, there were actually more larger ball parks then. Now, there's only probably a few I'd guestimate that have a seating capactiy above 50,000.

Personally I think baseball should be watched in a smaller more intimate setting and am glad that modern baseball parks have reverted back to smaller capacity venues.

As for the rest of the argument. I agree, if baseball is slipping it's not heard of as much. The home run chasing players helped that sport out of a dark time. Ok, steroid players helped that sport out. I will say that World Series ratings were down last year if I remember correctly. Which is a shame because it was a decent World Series I thought. Much better than watching something the Red Sox or Yankees are in IMO.

As for the youth. True, youngsters are poutting together pick up games of baseball anymore, but organized leagues are still doing very well in regards to youth and baseball is still churning out college baseball teams and highschool baseball teams like it used to. Baseball has lost a lot of African American interest but it doesn't matter much because South America has taken over the void.